List the Page’s / Instagram account’s own posts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds further behavioral specifics: it is read-only and uses 0 credits, only reads a Page the brand has connected, excludes Stories (Meta's media edge does not return them), and hides unpublished drafts unless requested. No contradiction exists; the description enriches the annotation-provided safety profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is relatively long but information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then justifies importance, then provides usage scenarios, then parameter specifics. Every sentence contributes value; however, it could be slightly tightened without losing meaning. The structure is logical and the most critical information appears early.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the returned fields (id, caption, permalink, publish date, format), the critical role of postId, platform-specific caveats (Stories, drafts), and the credit cost. There is no output schema, so the description compensates by outlining return data and edge cases. It could detail pagination behavior or response format further, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema for 'target' (explaining IG behavior and Stories exclusion) and 'includeUnpublished' (explaining that Facebook hides drafts unless asked). This goes a step beyond the schema, though it does not address 'limit' or 'cursor' specifically, which are well-covered already.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('connected Facebook Page's or Instagram account's OWN existing posts'), enumerates returned fields (id, caption, permalink, publish date, format), and explicitly positions itself as the tool that provides postId for other Meta tools (meta_post_insights, list_meta_comments, manage_meta_post). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_instagram_media or list_meta_comments without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: for 'how did our last few posts do', to find a post the user describes loosely, or before backfill_posts. It also gives specific parameter guidance (pass target:'instagram' for IG, and that Stories are excluded) and contrasts with post_to_meta as the only prior way to obtain a postId. This is clear, actionable, and includes exceptions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.